Larry Golden, proceeding pro se, filed his fifth appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding similar facts. In June 2025, he sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, asserting two primary claims: that the government took his intellectual property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that the government violated his patent rights. These allegations concerned cell phone manufacturers producing devices that allegedly infringed on his patents, a scenario involving government initiatives and products dating back between 2003 and 2017. This was not Golden's first attempt to litigate these issues; he had previously filed four unsuccessful suits at the Court of Federal Claims involving the same patents and government initiatives. In the lower court, the judge denied Golden's motion to disqualify himself, rejecting Golden's argument that prior rulings favoring the government demonstrated bias. The government moved to dismiss the new complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the six-year limitations period and failure to state a claim due to claim preclusion. The Court of Federal Claims granted the dismissal, finding the conduct untimely and the claims legally barred.
The Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and the denial of the disqualification motion for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the dismissal on two independent grounds. First, regarding the statute of limitations, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which bars civil actions against the United States unless filed within six years of when the right of action first accrues. The court found that because the alleged infringing conduct occurred between 2003 and 2017, and the complaint was filed in 2025, the claims were untimely and outside the court's jurisdiction. Second, regarding the substantive legal theory, the court addressed the claim that patent infringement by the government constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking. Citing its prior decision in Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and the Supreme Court's decision in Schillinger v. United States, the court reiterated that a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment is unavailable to patent owners alleging infringement by the government. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1498 provides the only avenue for such actions, and the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear takings claims based on alleged patent infringement. Finally, the court addressed the motion to disqualify the judge. Citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., the court noted that judicial rulings almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. The court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's denial of the recusal request, as past adverse rulings do not prove bias.
The decision confirms that patent owners cannot bypass the specific statutory scheme of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 by framing infringement claims as Fifth Amendment takings. It also reinforces the strict application of the six-year statute of limitations for suits against the government, barring claims where the underlying conduct occurred more than six years prior to filing. For litigants like Golden, this ruling closes the door on relitigating these specific patent disputes through takings theories or by seeking to disqualify judges based on prior adverse rulings. The case is remanded with instructions to dismiss, though the primary effect is the finality of the dismissal at the appellate level.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download